MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have no
opening statement, so I'll be more than pleased to take your
questions.

Q President Putin has just said that pulling
out of the ABM was a mistake. And once again reiterating
that the treaty is a cornerstone of world security. What's
your reaction to that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, I think there is much more to his
reaction than that. I do not believe that you have all of
it. And we will take a look at his reaction in its entirety
as the government receives it. And so I will withhold on any
reaction until his statement is received in its entirety, because there
is much more to it than what you've just indicated.

Q Like what?

Q That doesn't change the fact that he
thinks it's a mistake.

Q Good -- very good
point. (Laughter.) And also, can I take from your
answer that you -- the administration was given advance notice of what
the President was going to say?

MR. FLEISCHER: This morning in Moscow, when the official
notice was delivered to the Russian Foreign Ministry, our Ambassador
Vershbow delivered it to the Acting Foreign Minister. And
during that meeting, the United States government was given some type
of indication about what Mr. Putin might say.

So I would refer you to his comments in their entirety, and also
note, of course, that Mr. Putin has said that the strength of our
relationship, even on an area where we may disagree with missile
defense, remains strong in many areas. And those areas are
constructive and important to both nations, the strategic mutual
interests that we have will continue to guide our relationship beyond
today's announcement.

Q But, Ari, despite the fact that the
President is taking great pains to portray this relationship as
extremely cordial and warm and growing, it doesn't change the fact that
the United States and Russia couldn't reach a deal; through numerous
meetings, they still couldn't reach a deal. So what went
wrong? Where was the failure that led to the United States
having to defy Russia and other allies who support the ABM Treaty and
to unilaterally say that's it, we're out?

MR. FLEISCHER: A couple of points. One, the
President has made it plain that the United States intended at some
point to move beyond the treaty. And there were a series of
discussions that were held to see if anything could be done to
accommodate the President's desire to develop a robust testing system
that would protect our country within the constraints of any type of
agreement within the treaty.

And in the course of the discussions the United States had with
Russia, it became clear that no arrangements could be reached that
would be satisfying to both countries because in order to properly
test, the United States did not want to put itself in the position
where there could be misinterpretations or disagreements about the
exact nature of the treaty -- did this particular test violate the
treaty, did that particular test violate the treaty -- even if the
treaty had been somehow amended.

And so the President's judgment was that the most productive way to
proceed to maintain good relations would be to proceed with
clarity. And that clarity is to move beyond the treaty so
that the United States will not be inhibited in any way from developing
robust testing systems.

Q Could I follow on one point? Is
it -- was one of the major sticking points that Russia -- to what you
were saying -- wanted to be consulted in advance of each test, and
that's something that the United States was not willing to do?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it wasn't a question of the United
States not being willing to do. The United States is going
to be very cooperative with Russia as we move forward in describing the
tests. But the issue is, in order to test technology like
missile defense, one test could lead to another test to a different
type of test. It is impossible to, in advance, suggest to
anybody, including Russia, here is the exact list of tests we're going
to take, because we could have tests one through seven, for example,
and as a result of what we learn in those tests, have a different test
to test eight.

So it's impossible to lay out with the precision and clarity every
step along the way, or to anticipate if every one of the testing
regimes would possibly violate a hoped for amendment to the treaty, for
example. So the President made the judgment that it is best to proceed
with clarity and in a way that no one can misunderstand. And
that way we cannot violate a treaty, because we're no longer party to
the treaty.

And I think it's no surprise to anybody if the Russians would
indicate that they would have preferred the United States to stay in
the treaty. But that's why I said that it's not unexpected, but you
need to take a look at what Mr. Putin said in its entirety, because it
was much more constructive and broad than that.

Q But it appeared for a time, before the
President met with President Putin in Crawford, that a deal was
possible under which the U.S. would be able to test with Russia's
agreement that it didn't break the treaty -- in other words, to bend
the interpretation. Was the decision that that wasn't
possible made in the meeting between the two men in Crawford, or did it
come later?

MR. FLEISCHER: The decision that that would lead to
further difficulties and points of confusion as lawyers wrangled about
whether the test did, indeed, interfere with the amended treaty, that
really became clear to both parties in the talks leading up to
President Putin's meeting here in Washington, prior to arrival in
Crawford. I think that's when it then became clear that the
best course was the course the President outlined today, from President
Bush's point of view.

If that path had been pursued, it was the President's judgment it
would have lead to incessant wrangling about whether or not every
component of every test honored this amended agreement. And
one of the reasons the President has proceeded like this is because he
thinks the United States' relationship with Russia should be based on
less wrangling, not more. And the ABM Treaty would stand in
that way.

Q Let me just follow up. Did the
President and Putin then agree to disagree when they met?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it was clear what course the
United States was going to take. And I think it was also
clear about the broad strength of the U.S.-Russian relationship, which
has developed very strongly throughout the year. And then
the fact grew even deeper and richer in the meetings in Crawford.

And the reason for that -- there is so much more to the
U.S.-Russian relationship than a 30-year-old treaty. Russia
is moving in the general direction of the West, a future Russia lies
with the West, the prosperity of Russia does. And the United
States welcomes that.

The President has repeatedly said that he welcomes a future role
for Russia in the World Trade Organization. As you know,
NATO 20 sees a role for Russia in a consultative
fashion. The President has proposed to the Congress that
they eliminate the restrictions that have been imposed on Russia as a
result of the old Jackson-Vanik laws. So there is so much
more that is positive in the relationship between the United States and
Russia, and I think the two leaders have agreed that that's where the
focus should properly lie.

Q On that, Ari, the President also said he
wanted to formalize this new relationship, strategic
relationship. Does that mean that he is aiming to get some
kind of document, treaty or otherwise, that he and President Putin
could sign which would encompass perhaps missile defense, size of
nuclear stockpiles, joint defense planning, that kind of thing?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think on the topic of the reduction of
offensive weapons, which is another area the United States and Russia
share, the President has made a commitment to reduce the number of
weapons in the United States' nuclear arsenal to include between 1,700
and 2,200. Russia has indicated that they are interested in
a similar reduction.

The President has always said that he is open to whatever form that
would take, whether that is codified in some type of document or other,
or whether or not that's something the United States will simply
proceed and do. The President is indicated an openness to
the form.

Q So formalizing the relationship that he
was talking about relates only to the size of the nuclear stockpiles,
not to some new agreement about missile defense parameters, or not some
new agreement about joint defense planning Russia's role in NATO?

MR. FLEISCHER: Nobody's ruling out other documents that
would be presidential statements or codifications in whatever form they
take. There have been a variety of different issues in which
the U.S. and Russia collaborate, particularly on offensive weapons I've
indicated he's open. But on missile defense, no. I do not
think that it is not in the cards of missile defense. The
President could not have been plainer in his remarks in the Rose Garden
today.

Q One more. The President said he
had consulted, obviously, with President Putin
extensively. Who else did he consult with? This
is something that could damage the coalition, arguably, since there
were a lot of nations who didn't want to see this. Did he
talk in particular to China?

MR. FLEISCHER: He did. The President, this
morning, called President Jiang of China. As well, he has
spoken this week with Prime Minister Blair, with President Chirac, with
Chancellor Schroeder, with Mr. Koizumi. The President has had a series
of consultative discussions with the leaders around the
world. In addition, the Vice President and the Secretary of
State had a series of conversations. The Secretary of State,
of course, met with many leaders in his recent travels.

And so, the United States has done exactly what the President
committed to do, which was to consult, to talk to various nations --

Q What was their reaction?

MR. FLEISCHER: And I'll let each nation characterize it
for itself.

Q Since you've told us about it, you should
give us their reactions. (Laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: I was going to give you as much as I can
give you, while I don't speak for the other governments.

Q You know we're not going to be able to
call China and so forth.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, your phones work. You
have reporters there.

Q When he talked to those leaders, did he
tell them --

MR. FLEISCHER: But let me answer Helen's
question. The reactions vary from leader to leader, and
again, I will leave it to them and to their able spokespeople to give
you more specifics, but --

Q What was your --

MR. FLEISCHER: Wait a minute. The President,
in his conversations, number one, everybody appreciated the fact that
the President had consulted with them. Two, on the case of
China, for example, President Jiang said to the President he looked
forward to further, high-level dialogue about this
topic. And other leaders just recognized that the President
had always said he was going to do this, and they recognized that the
President kept his word, did what he indicated what he was going to
do.

So I think you will be able to get additional reaction from the
governments; they will, most likely, have public statements.

Q They didn't really like it, is what you're
really saying, but they had no alternative --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think again, different leaders say
different things. As you know, right from the beginning of the year,
Europe has basically been of several minds about this
topic. The President has all along had widespread support
for these from Spain, from Italy, from Hungary, from
Poland. There have been many nations that strongly do
support this.

Q To break the treaty -- they all had
supported that?

MR. FLEISCHER: They've always understood the United
States' statement about the need to develop missiles defenses and they
supported that.

Q What more can you tell us about the
discovery of the tape? Who found it? Where was it
found? And is it a recruitment video? Does bin
Laden threaten more attacks in this video?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you've seen the video in its
entirety, so you can judge Mr. bin Laden's statements for
themselves. But the tape was acquired in a home in
Jalalabad. That's where it was found. It was
subsequently brought to the attention of U.S. officials and then it was
sent to the United States.

Q Did U.S. troops find it?

Q What's the chain of
custody? Can you tell us who found it and then --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to be able to get into the
specific means of who found it, what the chain of custody was --

Q You just suggested that U.S. officials did
not find it, it came into their possession. So someone other
than U.S. troops or U.S. operatives found it?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's a fair inference.

Q And did the United States purchase it?

Q And then to get it to the hands of U.S.
military or CIA officers?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to get into all the details
about the chain of command.

Q The date it was found?

MR. FLEISCHER: You may want to check with DOD about
exactly when it was found. I can tell you, the President was
first informed of it on November 29th. He first viewed
portions of it on November 30th.

Q Where?

MR. FLEISCHER: Here at the White House during his
morning intelligence briefing.

Q Ari, you mentioned that before Putin even
got here that they sort of had an understanding of what was going to
happen. Why then did weeks pass after Putin left that we're
getting the announcement today from the President? I think
some find it curious that in the middle of all this hoopla we -- ABM at
10:00 a.m., tape at 11:00 a.m, -- it gets sort of washed under the
events. What took so long --

MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's -- it's, I think, bizarre to
think there could even be a connection between the two; that doesn't
serve any purpose. The President, in fact, spoke to President Putin on
Friday last week and informed him that he would be making the formal
notification, and that's why the formal notification took place today.

Q Any reason why -- since they knew before
he even got here that they were going to do this, why wasn't it sooner
after the Putin visit?

MR. FLEISCHER: There's no reason. You have to
pick a date. I think your question, no matter what date
would be picked, could be a similar question. The President
chose this as the date, and formal notification, as I said, was
delivered this morning in Moscow.

Q Along those lines, Ari --

MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, did you have something?

Q Yes. I actually want to follow
that -- why did the President tell Putin before he told congressional
leaders or the American public they were pulling out?

MR. FLEISCHER: The treaty is with Russia.

Q But formal notification was given
today. Why informal notification three days before --

MR. FLEISCHER: Because of the treaty with Russia, and
the President thought the appropriate place to make the first
notification about a future intent was with President Putin of Russia,
the follow -- successor nation to the signatory of the treaty.

Q A follow-up on the tape. You
said the President viewed it in this intelligence meeting November
30th. What was his impression then? Did he say then, I
think this is something the American public needs to see?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President wanted to make certain that
the tape was authentic, to make certain that there could be no
misunderstanding about anything that's in there. And that's
what set the course in motion the events that you've seen in the last
several days, where a determination was made that it was, indeed,
authentic. And then, the process began whereas I've
indicated publicly all week that the President wanted to share
information with the country this tape was of a different nature than
the previous tapes, and nobody saw any intelligence concerns, sources
or method concerns that would be jeopardized by the release of the
tape. And the rest of it was the DOD work on the
translation.

Q Is it fair to say from the beginning he
was inclined to release it if it met all those standards?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President's approach all
along has been, if it doesn't compromise intelligence, we're a
democracy, the information should be shared -- not only on this, but on
all matters.

Q His first question was, what was the
President's initial reaction November 30th? Can you share
anything on that?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has known all along that
Osama bin Laden has been behind this. That's been clear from
really the very first days after the attack took place. So
it came as no surprise to the President that Osama bin Laden would be
taking responsibility and having advance knowledge of the attack,
because it's consistent with other information.

Q How did he know?

MR. FLEISCHER: Bill, it's consistent with other
information the President has through other sources, methods and
means.

Q What about the laughing and sort of
comparing this to a soccer match?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President expressed that
himself when he was asked about the tape on Monday this week, and you
heard the President say that this is further proof that this a just
cause that the United States is engaged in. He referred to
Osama bin Laden as a murderer who would seek to destroy civilization if
we didn't stop him, and what an evil man Osama bin Laden
is. That was the President's reaction throughout it all.

Q Ari, can I just follow on that, because a
big concern U.S. officials have said is by releasing the tape it could
put to rest any doubts that might still exist in the Arab and Muslim
world. So is the President calling on moderate Arab leaders
to play the tape and to speak out about it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, I think this tape is going to be
an instance in which different people will come to the conclusions as
they see fit. The tape speaks for itself. People
will be able to watch it and listen to it for themselves, and form
their own judgments. It won't surprise me if some people
come to differing judgments about it, but people will come to their
own.

Q Is the White House any more -- feeling any
more favorable to Senator Daschle's proposals on the stimulus, such as
payroll tax holiday, reducing the 27 percent bracket to 26 percent,
feeling any more favorable to that today than you were yesterday?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there was a very lengthy meeting
that was held on Capitol Hill last night about the
stimulus. And the President is pleased to see that members
of Congress are talking and attempting to find a way out of the
gridlock that has met the stimulus discussions on the
Hill. The President has made a proposal that he believes can
break the gridlock.

What really this comes down to now is leadership, particularly in
the Senate. After all, if the House of Representatives was
able to pass a stimulus, why can't the Senate? So it still
remains to be seen whether or not the Senate will decide to take
action.

Q The Israeli government has announced a
decision not to have any dealing anymore with Yasser
Arafat. Where does it leave the American efforts?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is aware, of course, of
these statements, and the President believes very strongly that
Chairman Arafat needs to demonstrate his desire to achieve peace in the
Middle East. And the President believes it is incumbent on
Chairman Arafat to demonstrate in actions and deeds, and not just
words, that he will bring the killers to justice. And that
is what the President is waiting to see.

Q What will happen to the Zinni mission?

MR. FLEISCHER: What will happen to
it? General Zinni is actually going to meet with Prime
Minister Sharon at approximately 1:30 p.m. this afternoon Eastern
time. And so he is continuing to have discussions, to talk
to Mr. Sharon about the ramifications or the meaning of the recent
statements made. And so until that meeting takes place, we
will wait to have any further evaluations.

Q Can I just follow up on my previous
question?

MR. FLEISCHER: We're going to come
back. There are people who haven't had any yet.

Mr. Sanger.

Q Back on the treaty for a moment and the
conversation with President Jiang. The Chinese obviously
have a much smaller nuclear fleet than the Russians do. In
the course of the conversation, did the Chinese at any point suggest
that they would respond to this by building up the size of their
nuclear fleet? And if they do increase the size of their
arsenal, do you believe that the decision to build a system that might
be able to defeat the current size arsenal in China would be
responsible?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, these are issues that came up
directly between the President and President Jiang during the
President's meeting there in Shanghai this fall. And the
President made it clear at that time, as he has done previous times on
the phone, that the development of an American missile defense system
is not a threat to China, that this is designed entirely to protect the
United States and the people of the United States from a launch that
would come in the form of a terrorist attack if they were to get their
hands on ballistic missiles, or a rogue nation that would seek to harm
the United States. Those launches would come in the forms of
one or two missiles. That is what the missile defense system
is designed to counter.

A nation like China, that has the ability to launch many numbers of
missiles at the United States, could not be stopped as a result of a
missile defense program. This is not aimed at
China. This is aimed at the rogue nations, the terrorist
nations of the world that would do harm to the United States in much
smaller launches than China would ever be capable of doing.

Q Can you respond to the question of whether
President Jiang indicated that he would respond to this by building up
the size of his nuclear --

MR. FLEISCHER: The reaction from President Jiang this
morning was he looked forward to more high-level dialogue with the
President about this.

Q Could I ask about executive privilege,
which the President is exerting in terms of the oversight of
prosecutors? Previous Presidents, not always cheerfully, but
previous Presidents have allowed these documents to go to Congress so
they can exercise oversight of prosecutors. What's changed
that this President doesn't think that's right?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, actually, I differ with that
premise. Previous Presidents -- President Reagan three times
exerted executive privilege, and President Clinton four
times. So it is not uncommon.

The reason President Bush in this case exerted executive privilege
was to protect the effectiveness and the deliberativeness of the
justice process. In this case, where after the
administration had already turned over 3,500 pages to the House
committee in question, they continued to pressure the administration to
obtain very specific prosecutorial decision-making memoranda that are
the heart of the justice process, the heart of the deliberative process
the contains uncorroborated, raw information, raw data that prosecutors
weigh to decide whether or not to bring a case forward. And
often, especially when a case is not brought forward, release of that
information could be harmful to the people in question, when a decision
is made never to proceed with the prosecution.

And so, as a desire to protect the privacy of these conversations,
the President viewed the attempt to obtain these documents as an
attempt that would inhibit the candor necessary to have an effective
process of deliberation, as well as a risk to politicizing internal,
important judicial, Justice Department decisions. Because if
the Justice Department is required to turn these documents over to
Congress, it can apply political pressure to a process that should be
guided only by law, the rule of law and prosecutors recommendations.

Q -- that both Republicans and Democrats on
the Hill as saying that this makes oversight of prosecutors impossible
now.

MR. FLEISCHER: And that's why I pointed out to you that
3,500 pages have been provided. But there has been a
precedent, and it's well-established, about protection of certain
documents that should not be politicized and deserve to be kept
private. I would turn that exactly around and say that if
documents like this were to be provided by Congress, they would have a
chilling effect on the Justice Department's ability to carefully weigh
matters of prosecution to decide in which cases prosecution should be
or should not be brought.

Q On the Middle East, some Palestinian
spokesmen are now saying that this is open war between Israel and the
Palestinians. Is it? And in the past, when there
has been war, the United States has come to Israel's
assistance. Would this administration do so, if needed?

MR. FLEISCHER: What kind of -- the President has always
made it plain that the United States has a very close, special
relationship with Israel. But I'm not going to get into any
hypotheticals. There has been violence in the Middle East
for a considerable period of time.

Q Bin Laden talks a lot in the tape about
how the attacks bolstered Islam. There's shots of the downed
U.S. helicopter, and some others on the tape talk about how they're
feeling very comfortable where they are. Doesn't this look to you like
something that was intentionally left behind, and that bin Laden wanted
this to be viewed by the world?

MR. FLEISCHER: We have no indications of
that. In fact, if anything, the manner in which the tape was
acquired would suggest that people were leaving the house in a real big
hurry and left it behind.

Q Two questions. As far as the
tape is concerned, he said one time that the messages of
congratulations were falling in. Where they were from,
number one? Number two, two weeks ago India Globe carried
the whole thing, and where he said that in the article that he is
behind attacks on the U.S. And also, in another article, he
said that jihad will continue after the attack.

And the second question is that India -- and this time the target
was India's parliament. And Indian authorities blame the
Taliban behind that attack. Now, do you think India should
do the same thing that the Israelis are doing?

MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, let me just announce to you
that President Bush this morning also called President Vajpayee of
India -- I'm sorry, Prime Minister Vajpayee of India, to condemn the
attack and to express the condolences of the American people through
the Prime Minister to the families of those who were killed, and to all
the Indian people. The President also offered the assistance
of the FBI and of the State Department counterterrorist teams if so
desired. And so I just want to make sure you were aware of
that.

Q The Taliban --

MR. FLEISCHER: We have no indication of who is
responsible.

Q -- as far as the tape is concerned.

MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead. What about the
tape?

Q If you think you are going to provide the
tape to al Jazeera, they should play this tape, because they had been
playing the hatred messages against the United States?

MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, we do not see this tape in
the same context as the previous tapes, because again, this is not a
prepackaged tape that Osama bin Laden clearly, on the other tapes,
indicated he wanted to be distributed. He was the man
responsible for their distribution. So the Department of
Defense has released it, it is available to everyone. I can
only presume that al Jazeera, among other media outlets, has acquired
it.

Q But this will clear --

Q Ari, you, in effect, today placed this
tape on the table in the court of public opinion. How would
the administration intend to use it in a real court, or I assume in bin
Laden's case, a tribunal as evidence?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I can't answer that
question. I'm not an attorney, and I think that's
hypothetical, involving the ultimate fate of Mr. bin Laden.

Q Do you think that it would be legal
evidence in a court?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not qualified to make judgments like
that; I'm not a lawyer.

Q What's the current state of thinking about
where bin Laden is now?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the Department of Defense yesterday
when they briefed, indicated that they have no reason to think that he
has left Afghanistan. There have been reports, of course,
that he has, that he was -- the Department of Defense was asked about
that yesterday, and they said the border is porous and they don't have
definitive proof. If they knew exactly where he was, I think
he would have already been taken care of. But they don't see any
reason to believe that he has left Afghanistan.

Q What's the President's level of concern,
Ari, that he's been on the loose for this long?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has been patient all along,
and he continually has reminded the American people that this Osama bin
Laden and his lieutenants can be brought to justice tomorrow, next
month, or next year.

Q Ari, going back to the tape issue and
somewhat to what Heidi was talking about, many critics are already
saying that the administration has given bin Laden a
platform. For one, he's saying that he wants all the people
in the United States to call on Allah and the prophet Mohammed. That's
one thing that he said in the tape that's his platform. What
do you say to that when you say that the President felt that it was
okay, it wasn't prepackaged propaganda, but he did, indeed, give bin
Laden a platform to speak what he wanted to speak?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that's a message that you
heard in any number of forums, that Osama bin Laden and his followers
have called this a religious war that they would seek to bring to the
West or to the United

States. So that's not a surprising or a new
development.

Q Ari, can you clarify the point at which
the administration realized that it was going to be impossible to reach
an agreement with Russia on some sort of new regime that would allow
missile defense testing?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it became increasingly clear in
the lead-up to the meeting in Washington with President Putin that any
attempts to create one central agreement on how to move beyond the ABM
Treaty would lead to more difficulties rather than less. And
so that's when it became clear, and I think that was then -- when the
two leaders met in the Oval Office, that's when that became final.

Q Why wait until now to go ahead and make
the formal announcement? What was the reason for the delay?

MR. FLEISCHER: There just has to be a date picked at
some time. And this is done with an eye toward the future
needs of the Defense Department to proceed with missile testing and --

Q So the sense was that there is a test that
is about six months out that needs to be done that might --

MR. FLEISCHER: There is a robust series of
tests. And as you know, even prior to President Putin's
arrival in the United States this fall, the Defense Department walked
through a series of tests that they would have engaged in, but they
would have bumped into the treaty, as they put it. And so, all along
the United States has been concerned at the fact that the timetable to
develop a test to protect the country on missile defense was bumping
into the ABM Treaty. The bump was about to take place.

Q Two questions. Fox News
reported yesterday that some 60 Israelis have been detained in the
United States since September 11th, and that federal investigators
suspect that these Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the
September 11th attacks in advance and not shared it. Can you shed any
light on this report?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. I would just refer you to
the Department of Justice with it. I'm not familiar with the
report, so Justice -- go ahead.

Q Thank you.

MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.

Q No, no, no -- (laughter.)

(Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling of the Arizona Diamondbacks come
up to the podium.)

RANDY JOHNSON: We were told we couldn't leave until
you've actually had this on -- (puts hat on Ari's
head.) (Laughter and applause.)

MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, boy.

Q Any comments, Ari? How do you
feel?

MR. FLEISCHER: I still don't know why the infield was in
in the bottom of the
9th. (Laughter.) Congratulations. It
was a great World Series and you guys really deserved it.

RANDY JOHNSON: Thank you.

CURT SCHILLING: Thank you very much.

MR. FLEISCHER: These are the world champion Arizona
Diamondbacks, I'm chagrined to report. (Applause.)

RANDY JOHNSON: It may be just a rumor, but I heard if we
rub your head, we'll be back here next year. (Laughter and
applause.)

MR. FLEISCHER: I suspect I'll have even less hair next
year, and the Yankees will be
back. (Laughter.) Congratulations.

RANDY JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

CURT SCHILLING: We were questioning your first name,
A-R-I, which is basically almost the New York Stock Exchange symbol for
the Arizona Diamondbacks. (Laughter.) The
correlation there is that you were probably born a Diamondbacks fan and
just don't know it yet. (Laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm really honored that you guys are
here. Baseball is a great sport --